In terms of social justice, international borders are artificial, the struggles of people everywhere are the same. (S. Ahmed)
1. We have to start this Reader with a caveat: Depth of feeling about the need of adopting the human rights-based framework is not enough; passion alone may nurture bias of its own. So, the question is: What are we supposed to do not to nurture bias?
2. Even a very partial beginning of pointing out potential biases to be aware of helps here.
3. For starters, there are some important legal nuances we need to be aware of:
i) In international terms, the need for states to ‘respect’ human rights (HR) is part of international HR law; it is not clear if the need to ‘protect’ HR is legally binding; and the need to ‘fulfill’ HR has no real legal basis. (Margaret Vidar)*
*: We note that sameness is different from fairness. Is it a surprise that in the current development paradigm equality is very often backed by law, but equity not yet?
ii) Transnational corporations (TNCs) and public-private-for-profit-partnerships (PPPPs) do not have explicit legal HR obligations internationally; they only have them towards their states of origin. It thus behooves those states to make TNCs abide by HR principles –despite what corporations (at the same time trying to be judges and jury) would have us believe with their smooth rhetoric about their corporate responsibility.
iii) It is not clear if UN bodies have legal international obligations in HR.
Therefore, for now, what is needed is a high enough UN oversight body to make all UN agencies HR-accountable, making sure, among other, they use HR-based program planning and they carry out HR impact assessments of what they (plan to) do. [Let us be clear, the obligations are there, but need to be made enforceable]. It is thus high time for standards to be set and for intra-UN mechanisms of recourse for non-compliance to be set up. That is a challenge the international community cannot procrastinate on any longer! It is not an overstatement to say that, in terms of HR, UN agencies have to move from being reactive to being proactive in the prevention of HR violation**. After 1998, when the Secretary General clearly signaled the path for the UN to be along the HR framework, at the core has been our inability (so far) to go from UN-agencies-as-they-are to UN-agencies-as-they-ought-to-be.
**: We have to beware of the tendency in the past towards a rhetorical repackaging of the HR framework and its application which has meant ‘integrating’ HR language into instruments from the UN or other agencies, but when doing so, going no further than this superficial addition. The diffusion of the HR paradigm throughout the UN has actually so far scattered the HR obligations everywhere and nowhere leading to an incoherent UN system in matters of HR; this has clearly prevented meaningful progress. (N. Borofsky).
4. Then, there are other scattered considerations to be objective about:
i) In our work as HR activists, slick slogans are not constructive; and hair-splitting debates on definitions are of no help either. (P. Fuchs) Likewise, theoretical pronouncements alone do not make good strategies for our work***. (Richard Jolly)…and opportunities should not be mistaken for solutions.
***: Beware: when academics have nothing better to offer to change a situation on the ground, they build sand castles. (Mathew Anderson)
ii) We cannot overlook the fact that if an organization is to function on the principle of consensus, divergent points of view and conflicting interests must be conciliated. (CETIM) [Any message here for UN agencies?].
iii) We have to always emphasize that supply-and-demand issues and market forces interactions (for example in the delivery of health services) make no sense in the HR-based framework except to hide and evade the claim holders/duty bearers dialectic confrontation issue at the core when, from a HR perspective, 100% of the population has to have access for the right to health to be fulfilled. (Laura Turiano).
iv) We often make predictions. Keep in mind that uncertainty is imprecise knowledge about potential future events whereas risk is uncertainty that can be systematically assessed. The name of the game is to convert uncertainty into risk. [Note: Financial markets are a standard mechanism for trading risk…until, in 2008, they began trading on uncertainty….?].
v) We also continuously speak about accountability. This should not translate only into ‘naming and shaming’, but into the right to ask the question: Why was something done/not done? It is for that that an independent mechanism needs to be in place to monitor accountability.
vi) Do not fall into a trap: MDGs and HR cannot be married; MDGs focus on goals (and are thus not inherently participatory); HR focus on processes that are inherently participatory. [Village-level progress towards each of the eight MDGs –as opposed to national aggregates for each goal– is where a HR-based framework would center its attention. That is more HR-like].
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org